HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SUMMARY
Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Measures are recommended to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Implementation of the proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area due to aircraft operations.
Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
INTRODUCTION
The following analysis is based upon the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Camarillo Springs Country
Club, 791 Camarillo Springs Road, Camarillo, CA 93012 (Phase I ESA) prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc., January 10, 2020, the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013, and the Camarillo Springs Golf
Course Project - Final Traffic and Circulation Study (Traffic and Circulation Study) prepared by Associated
Transportation Engineers, September 3, 2020. The City of Camarillo has independently reviewed and allowed for public review the information presented in the Phase I ESA and the Traffic and Circulation
Study. A copy of the Phase I ESA is provided as Appendix N to this EIR while the Traffic and Circulation Study is provided as Appendix T.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Site Description
Camarillo Springs Golf Course is a 182-acre, privately-owned facility that has been developed and operational for more than 45 years. The property is comprised of nine legal parcels and is currently developed with an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse facility, driving range, maintenance buildings, and associated structures. The existing parcels are illustrated in Figure 3-4. The golf course is open for public use and play, as well as tournaments, and its hours of operation are from sunrise until sundown, seven days per week.
Potential Hazardous Materials at the Project Site
Prior to development as a golf course, the property was used for agricultural purposes. The property is also located within the Conejo Oil Field and there are approximately 210 oil wells within 1⁄4 mile of the property. Approximately 94 wells are recorded on State records as having been drilled in the past within the north-northeastern portion of the property; 61 of these wells are listed as active producer wells. The locations of oil wells are depicted in Figure 5.8-1. Three types of wells are mapped in the area of the project: “active producer,” “active injector” and “plugged.” “Active producer” does not necessarily mean that the well is currently producing oil or being used, in the case of an “active injector” to inject water back into the oil horizon. Rather, those terms are used by the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) [formerly known as the Division of Geologic and Geothermal Reserves (DOGGR)] to refer to wells that have been drilled, but for which no formal abandonment records are on file. Those wells may be idle, or may have been abandoned with no accompanying documentation filed with the State. Currently, no oil production or oil field injection activities occur on the property, and no physical oil production facilities or equipment were observed on the project site during a site visit. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all of the wells mapped as “active producer” or “active injector” are no longer present on site, and have been abandoned.
As shown in greater detail in Figure 5.8-2, all but one of the wells are located outside of the area proposed for residential development. Figure 5.8-2 shows the location of a “dry hole” that is located in the area proposed for residential development. As the name indicates this represents the location where attempts to drill a well may have occurred but since the boring identified that it would not produce oil or was not needed or suitable for an injection well, a well was not ultimately drilled at this location and the location has been abandoned.
In a records review for historic activities, a California Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) listing indicates that a leak of crude oil was discovered in March 1995 from a former oil well. Maintenance crew of the golf course observed oil come up through the green and reported it to the Ventura County Environmental Health Division. However, there are no records available from the Ventura County Environmental Health Division that identify what was done to address the potential leak.
In addition, the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), was contacted in May 2019 to investigate globs of oil floating on a pond on the 12th hole of the golf course. CalGEM staff met with representatives of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to investigate the site. CalGEM staff state that the CDFW deemed that there was no harm to wildlife or the environment at the time.1
CalGEM was again contacted in November 2019 about a seep at approximately the same location. CalGEM staff investigated the site and found the pond nearly drained with absorbent boom around the seeps near the shoreline of the pond. Old records and aerial photographs from the 1920s to the present were reviewed by CalGEM staff to try and pinpoint the source of the seep. Aerial photographs did not depict any potential well in the vicinity of the seep. Well records were also reviewed. Natural seepage is known in this area. Consequently, the project applicant and the CDFW have coordinated in 2020 to drain 2
the pond in an effort to deter the presence of water fowl due to oil seepage in the pond.
A site survey was conducted as part of the Phase I ESA preparation. Two 1,000-gallon above ground storage tanks (ASTs) holding diesel fuel were observed in the northwestern corner of the property within the maintenance facility area. The ASTs appeared in good condition without any indication of leaking or staining. Three large drums (>50 gallons) of hydraulic oil were observed in the maintenance facility area. The drums appeared in good condition without any indication of leaking or staining. Gasoline odors were detected amongst the maintenance facility vehicles stored in the maintenance area.
Fertilizer was observed along the northern part of the maintenance facility area and a locked room containing pesticides was observed in the maintenance area. The fertilizer and pesticides are routinely used in golf course maintenance throughout the property.
A 1,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST) was removed from the property in 1996. During the UST removal, soil was excavated to a depth of 12.5 feet below ground surface. A Remedial Action Completion Certification was issued by the County of Ventura Resource Management Agency in July 1997; however, no soil vapor sampling was conducted. Additionally, a previous ESA of the property stated there was a solvent degreaser used by maintenance staff.
Patricia A. Abel, letter to Steve Butler, April 8, 2020.
1
Ibid.
Potential Hazardous Materials in the Local Vicinity
The Phase I ESA researched individual facilities in the local vicinity that have the potential to pose a risk to the golf course property. The research identified the following four facilities:
• 5th Avenue Dry Cleaning (1999-2014)
• De Fina Emma (service station - 2004-2007)
• Main Street Cleaners (2006-2014)
• Harman Ranch (citrus orchard - current)
Based on one or more of the following reasons: distance from the property, position of sites with respect to assumed groundwater flow direction, the native soils, and regulatory status, none of the nearby facilities are expected to affect soil or groundwater quality at the property.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Routine Use and Transport of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the proposed project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact Analysis
Construction-Related Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.
Operational Impacts
Golf course operations would continue to use and store fuels for maintenance vehicles and fertilizer and pesticides for routine maintenance. These materials are already used and stored at the property. The proper use and storage of these products as required by existing regulations would would not create a significant hazard to the public living near the golf course property and the potential impact would be less than significant.
The only potentially hazardous materials that would be used on a regular basis in the new residential area would be cleaning and landscaping products that are common to typical residential developments. The proper use and storage of these products as required by existing regulations would would not create a significant hazard to the public living near the project site and the potential impact would be less than significant.
Release of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the proposed project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Measures are identified to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
Impact Analysis
The historic use of herbicides and pesticides for agriculture and golf course maintenance is considered a recognized environmental condition to the property. The disturbance of the soils during site clearing and grading activities could expose nearby residents to concentrations of these materials. This is a potentially significant impact.
As discussed previously, A 1,000-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the property in 1996. Additionally, a solvent degreaser was reported present and used for equipment maintenance. Due to a lack of soil vapor data from the UST removal, there is the potential that gasoline and degreaser materials may still be present in the soil. Release of these materials during site clearing and grading would be a potentially significant impact.
The presence of active and former oil wells within the project site boundary and within 1⁄4 mile radius is considered a recognized environmental condition. Disturbance of wells used for oil production (as opposed to abandoned injector wells which traditionally only injected water into the ground) during site grading could release petroleum materials into the environment. Also, any new development in the vicinity of the former oil wells may require the former oil wells to be re-abandoned to current CalGEM Idle Well Program standards or may require construction setbacks from the well casings. In addition, there is the potential for petroleum vapors from the wells to have migrated within the property. Release of petroleum vapors during site clearing and grading would be a potentially significant impact. As noted previously, there are no active wells on site, and none of the wells are within the footprint of the project area proposed for residential development. The mapped wells are located on the golf course component of the project which is currently being used as a golf course.
CamGEM advises that all wells identified on a development parcel prior to, or during development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to CalGEM in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. CalGEM expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately. Failure to plug and re-abandon the well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform re-abandonment well work, pursuant to PRC sections 3208.1, and 3224.
PRC section 3208.1 gives CalGEM the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth by CalGEM. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for re-abandonment as:
1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with DOGGR or CalGEM requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent
or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.
2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with DOGGR or CalGEM requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be re-abandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.
3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with DOGGR or CalGEM requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the re-abandonment.
No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from CalGEM. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. CalGEM also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR section 1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from CalGEM is required before work can start.
Mitigation
The following mitigation measure is recommended to address the potential release of herbicides and pesticides during site clearing and grading activities:
HM-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall have a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared and completed to evaluate whether residual pesticides or heavy metals associated with historical herbicide applications are present above regulatory residential screening levels, human health risk criteria or California hazardous waste levels. Composite soil samples should be collected on one-acre centers within the property with historical agricultural use. Soil samples should be collected at 1.0 and 3.0 feet below ground surface (bgs) for analysis of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and associated heavy metals. The 1.0 feet bgs sample should be submitted to the laboratory and analyzed for organochloride
pesticides and lead and arsenic related to historic agricultural uses. The remaining 3.0 feet soil samples collected should be placed on hold pending the analytical results of the first round of soil samples. Soil samples for OCPs and heavy metals should be analyzed by EPA test methods 8081 and 6010. If the samples identify any areas where residual pesticide or heavy metal readings exceed the applicable screening levels or human health standards, the project developer shall prepare and submit to the City a soil management and remediation program to reduce the readings to acceptable levels by measures such as removal of the contaminated soils to an off-site Class III landfill, implementation of a soil management program to reduce the concentrations present, or leaving the material in place and capping it with clean fill material.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to address the potential release of gasoline and degreaser materials from the location of the previous 1,000-gallon UST during site clearing and grading activities:
HM-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall conduct a geophysical survey and collection of soil vapor and soil samples to evaluate any impact from these features. Soil samples should be analyzed for TPH (full scan) and VOC analysis by U.S. EPA test methods 8015M and 8260 along soil vapor for VOC and TPHv analysis by EPA test method TO-15. Analytical results should be compared to regulatory screening level for commercial and residential land use set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), dated November 2019 or Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Hero Note #3, dated April 2019. If the samples identify any areas where the soil or soil vapor readings exceed the applicable screening levels or human health standards, the project developer shall prepare and submit to the City a soil management and remediation program to reduce the readings to acceptable levels.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to address the potential release of well petroleum materials and vapors during site clearing and grading activities:
HM-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall conduct a subsurface investigation including a geophysical survey and soil sampling to evaluate potential impact associated with the former oil wells. If any soil requiring remediation due to presence of the wells is identified, the project developer shall prepare and submit to the City a soil management and remediation program to remediate the soil to acceptable levels by measures such as removal of the contaminated soils to an off-site Class III landfill, implementation of a soil management program to reduce the concentrations present, or leaving the material in place and capping it with clean fill material. If any wells are identified, the project developer shall comply with Mitigation Measure HM-4.
HM-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall have all wells identified within the project site tested for liquid and gas leakage. Any wells found leaking shall be reported to CalGEM immediately. The developer shall submit a report of findings to CalGEM and the City of Camarillo. Surveyed locations shall be provided in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format.
HM-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project developer shall submit to the City of Camarillo a report that identifies all oil wells in the vicinity of the grading and construction areas and that specifies whether the wells are to be re-abandoned to current CalGEM Idle Well Program standards or whether grading and construction setbacks are being provided from the well casings.
Mitigation Monitoring
The Department of Community Development shall review the technical reports to ensure that they address the requirements of mitigation measures HM-1 through HM-5.
Impact After Mitigation
Compliance with all applicable standards for the treatment of soils and wells would reduce the potential impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Release of Hazardous Materials Near Schools
Threshold: Would the proposed project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact Analysis
There are no existing or proposed schools located within the Camarillo Springs area or within one-quarter mile of the project site. No impact would occur.
Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the proposed project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Impact Analysis
Based on the research conducted for the Phase I ESA, the project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur.
Aircraft Hazards
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area due to aircraft operations.
Impact Analysis
The Camarillo Springs area is located within the general flight paths of Camarillo Airport and Naval Base Ventura County but is located outside of the airport land use plan areas for these airports. There are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of Camarillo. No impact would occur.
Emergency Evacuation
Threshold: Would the proposed project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact Analysis
According to the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013, evacuation routes in Camarillo are dependent upon the event and need for evacuation. During a breach of the Bard Reservoir, the only required evacuation route would be the movement onto high ground out of the flood plain, which is generally north of Ponderosa Road, westerly of Ponderosa and Las Posas Roads and easterly of Calleguas Creek northerly of the Ventura Freeway (U.S. 101). In the event of a major chemical spill or other significant disaster, the City would be evacuated using U.S. 101 for east and westerly traffic or Lewis Road for evacuating the residents to the north or south. The proposed project would not alter any vehicular circulation routes external to the project site, or impede public access or travel upon public rights-of-way.
Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This would be a less than significant impact.
The Camarillo Springs area is an isolated community within the City of Camarillo. The City of Camarillo requested an evaluation of an emergency evacuation of the Camarillo Springs community assuming a major catastrophe (fire, flood, earthquake, etc.) is in order to evaluate the time required for 100% evacuation of the community. It is noted that the following evacuation analysis is based on assumptions that may or may not represent real evacuation situations and is, therefore, not an operations plan for a real evacuation situation.
Access to the Camarillo Springs community is limited to two primary routes: 1) the U.S. Highway 101/ Camarillo Springs Road interchange and 2) the Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane connection to Pancho Road. Emergency evacuation times were evaluated assuming three evacuation scenarios: 1) assuming that the connection to U.S. Highway 101 is blocked, 2) assuming that the Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane connection is blocked, and 3) assuming that both connections are open.
Traffic Generation
Evacuation traffic flows were forecast based on the population of the Camarillo Springs area on a typical weekday when the office and retail commercial uses in the community are most active (versus overnight periods and weekend periods when those uses are less active). According to U.S. census tract data, there are 601 residential units, 73,390 square feet of business center (office) space, 21,400 square feet of commercial retail space, and the 18-hole golf course within the Camarillo Springs area.
The next step in the analysis converts the population within the community to the number of vehicles that would be active during the evacuation period. The analysis assumes that 50% of the community residents would be located outside of the community, receive notification of the disaster, return to their homes to gather valuables, pets, etc., and then evacuate the community. The analysis also assumes that 75% of the residential units would evacuate in one vehicle and 25% would evacuate in two vehicles. The number or vehicles evacuating the non-residential uses (commercial, office, and golf course) were calculated based on parking lot space counts and occupancies. Table 5.8-1 summarizes the number of inbound and outbound vehicles that are forecast for the 100% evacuation scenario.
Scenario 1 - U.S. Highway 101 Access Blocked
This scenario assumes that access to/from U.S. Highway 101 is not available (no access to U.S. Highway 101 eastbound and westbound ramps). Evacuation would occur solely via the Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane connection to Pancho Road (which connects to Pleasant Valley Road to leave the area). The highest concentration of traffic, and therefore a potential bottleneck, would occur on the segment of Ridge View Street just west of the project site. As shown in Table 5.8-1, a total of 425 vehicles would be inbound to the
community (residents that are outside of the community and return home to gather valuables assuming that they would be allowed by emergency personnel) and 1,298 vehicles would be outbound during the evacuation event.
The analysis assumes that emergency evacuation due to a large disaster near or within the community would require immediate evacuation and be facilitated by emergency personnel (e.g. police, fire, designated personnel). The evacuation scenario assumes that emergency personnel would be present to alert residents to evacuate and to direct traffic into/out of the community via the Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane route as well as at key intersections within the community (e.g. Ridge View Street-Street-Adohr Lane/Pancho Road) to maximize flow rates. Assuming a street network capacity that would accommodate 1,700 inbound + 1,700 outbound vehicles per hour, the 425 vehicles inbound vehicles could reach their home in less than 15 minutes and the 1,298 outbound vehicles could evacuate the community in less than 1 hour (approximately 45 minutes).
Scenario 2 - Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane Access Blocked
This scenario assumes that access via U.S. Highway 101 would be available and access via the Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane connection to Pancho Road would be blocked. The highest concentration of traffic, and therefore a potential bottleneck, would occur on the segment of Camarillo Springs Road just south of the U.S. Highway 101 eastbound ramps. The scenario assumes that emergency personnel would be present to alert residents to evacuate and to direct traffic to the U.S. highway 101 ramps via Camarillo Springs Road. Assuming maximum flow rates of 1,700 inbound + 1,700 outbound vehicles per hour on Camarillo Springs Road, the 425 vehicles inbound vehicles could reach their home in less than 15 minutes and the 1,298 outbound vehicles could evacuate the community in less than 1 hour (approximately 45 minutes).
TABLE 5.8-1 - CAMARILLO SPRINGS EMERGENCY EVACUATION TRAFFIC GENERATION
L a n d U s e D w e l l i n g U n i t s /S q u a re F e e t I n b o u n d Ve h i c l e s O u t b o u n d Ve h i c l e s
Existing Residential 601 Units 301 751
Existing Business Center 73,390 Square Feet 0 136 Existing Commercial Center 21,400 Square Feet 0 35
Existing Golf Course 18 Holes 0 66
Proposed Project 248 Units 124 310
Totals 425 1,298
Scenario 3 – No Access Blocked
This scenario assumes that access via U.S. Highway 101 and via Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane are open. Assuming that emergency personnel would be present to alert residents to evacuate and to direct traffic to evacuate via U.S. Highway 101 or Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane, the maximum flow rates would be 1,700 inbound + 1,700 outbound vehicles per hour on Camarillo Springs Road and 1,700 inbound + 1,700 outbound vehicles per hour on Ridge View Street-Adohr Lane. The 425 vehicles inbound vehicles could reach their home in less than 15 minutes and the 1,298 outbound vehicles could evacuate the community in less than 1/2 hour.
The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) under the Sheriff’s Department is responsible for evacuations in Ventura County. There are no official standards for evacuation times. OES only requires that there be multiple ingress/egress routes to allow for evacuations. As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the multiple routes allow for evacuation of the Camarillo Springs Community. The proposed project would not change the existing roadways surrounding the site and would not eliminate any existing evacuation routes.
Wildfire
Threshold: Would the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Impact: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Impact Analysis
A more comprehensive discussion on potential wildland fire impacts is provided in the Wilfdire section of this EIR. As discussed in the Wildfire section, residents of the proposed project, as with all residents of the Camarillo Springs community, would be exposed to smoke and pollutant concentration from a wildfire in the nearby hills. However, the project would occur within the existing boundaries of the Camarillo Springs Golf Course property and would not directly affect any areas of the nearby fire hazard zones. As such, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The impact of the project would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Development of the proposed project in combination with projects elsewhere in Camarillo has the potential to increase to some degree the risks associated with the use and potential accidental release of hazardous materials throughout the City. However, the potential impact associated with the proposed
project would be less than significant and, therefore, not cumulatively considerable. As with the proposed project, the potential presence of hazardous substances associated with other related projects would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the development proposals for each of those properties. Further, local municipalities are required to follow local, state, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials, which would further reduce impacts associated with related projects. Therefore, with compliance with local, state and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials, the proposed project in conjunction with other project throughout Camarillo would be expected to result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. At the present time, the only other related project within the Camarillo Springs area is the request to modify the conditional of approval for the Village Greens Market located at 795 Camarillo Springs Road. No other new development project is proposed or approved within the Camarillo Springs area. As such, no significant cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials in the Camarillo Springs area are expected.
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The proposed project would not create any unavoidable significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
